Congress Rejects Calls For Iran War Oversight as Key Deadline Nears

Nearly two months after the United States joined Israel in launching a war against Iran, Congress remains as formally disengaged as in the first days of the conflict, having yet to hold a single public hearing on the issue and facing a looming statutory deadline that may come and go without a clear assertion of its authority. 

The absence of sustained oversight has left lawmakers grasping for basic details about the war’s trajectory even as its economic and political consequences ripple at home. Interviews with more than a dozen lawmakers in both parties reveal a vacuum of information and a lack of urgency from leadership to fill it. While Administration officials have hosted a handful of classified briefings about the war, many lawmakers complain they were woefully insufficient, leaving them with more questions than answers.

Sen. Roger Wicker, the Republican chairman of the Armed Services Committee, tells TIME that he hopes to hold a public hearing with Trump Administration officials on the Iran war “sometime in the month of May.” That would fall after the conflict reached the 60-day mark that, under the War Powers Resolution, presidents must terminate military operations unless Congress has voted to declare war or passed legislation to authorize the use of force. “May is about the appropriate time,” Wicker added.

Whether that moment becomes an inflection point, or simply another deadline brushed aside, remains uncertain. “When you get up to that 60th day, based on what some Republicans are saying, that might be a watershed for them,” Democratic Sen. Tim Kaine of Virginia tells TIME. 

For now, however, there is little indication that Congress is preparing to meet that moment with the kind of urgency or institutional force the law envisions. Instead, the slow drift toward the deadline has underscored how thoroughly lawmakers have, at least temporarily, ceded their oversight role through a series of delays, deferrals, and diminished expectations about what Congress can or should demand in the midst of an ongoing conflict.

Some Republicans say the information gap has left them unable to fully assess the state of the war they are being asked to support. Sen. Lisa Murkowski, a Republican of Alaska, tells TIME she was “not at all satisfied” with the level of classified information provided to Congress. “Part of the problem we have right now is that there has been very limited information about the war provided to Congress,” she says, arguing that public hearings would help ensure accountability “on full display for the public to hear.”

Yet even as frustrations mount, Congress has taken few concrete steps to assert itself. A scheduled House Armed Services Committee hearing that would have featured senior military commanders was postponed until late May, depriving lawmakers of one of their first opportunities to publicly question officials about the war. And the only appearance by Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth is set to occur in the context of a routine budget hearing, not a focused examination of the conflict.

The delays have drawn criticism from Democrats, who argue that the Republican majority is acquiescing to an Administration reluctant to publicly defend its strategy. Rep. Adam Smith of Washington, the top Democrat on the House Armed Services Committee, warned that postponing hearings would leave Congress without answers on the war’s goals, costs, and broader regional implications.

Democrats have tried to force the issue in other ways beyond public hearings, including repeated calls for additional classified briefings and a series of War Powers votes aimed at curbing the president’s authority. Another such vote is expected Wednesday, though it is likely to fail, as previous efforts have.

For some lawmakers, the problem is not just the lack of information, but the sense that the information being provided is of limited value. “They don't seem to have a coherent strategy,” Sen. Mark Kelly, an Arizona Democrat, tells TIME. He added that the briefings he has attended were “not completely forthcoming,” arguing that the Administration’s approach has been “way off” and that officials are now “flailing” to define a strategic objective.

Concerns that the war lacks a clearly articulated endgame are beginning to surface among some Republicans as well, particularly as the economic consequences of the conflict become harder to ignore. Energy prices have climbed sharply since the fighting began, driven in part by disruptions to shipping through the Strait of Hormuz, a critical chokepoint for global oil supplies.

Senate Majority Leader John Thune has largely defended Trump’s approach, emphasizing the national security rationale for the campaign and expressing confidence in the information provided by Administration officials. “I think that most of our colleagues believe that the President is correct” in acting against Iran’s military capabilities, he told reporters Tuesday, adding that officials have been “very forthcoming” when he has asked questions.

Yet Thune is also signaling that Congress may be poised to take on a more active oversight role. On Tuesday, he pointed to a provision in the War Powers Resolution that allows the President to continue the war for an additional 30 days without Congressional approval, but only if he certifies to Congress in writing that he needs the one-time extension to ensure the safe withdrawal of U.S. troops. The reference suggested he expects Trump to honor the War Powers Act by either submitting the extension request or asking Congress to formally approve continuing military operations. 

He has also recently called an upcoming request from the White House for tens of billions in additional war funding as “an important inflection point,” suggesting that financial considerations could force a more substantive debate in Congress.

Yet those scenarios leave Congress continuing to do little on the war for the time being.

“I’m just not satisfied,” Murkowski says. “I think there needs to be more classified briefings. These are obviously consequential as we're going through the appropriations bills right now and we’ve got nothing in terms of what the supplemental is going to look like.”

But not all Republicans are convinced that more aggressive oversight is necessary. Sen. Ron Johnson of Wisconsin questioned the value of holding any public hearings on the war. “I don’t know if that’s necessary,” Johnson tells TIME. “I'm not sure what it would achieve, just give the Democrats an opportunity to cheerlead against America.”

Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas tells TIME he was satisfied with the classified information Congress has received so far and framed Democratic calls for additional scrutiny as politically motivated. “I’m certainly open to hearings on Iran and their terror threat,” he says. “It used to be that the politics ends at the water's edge. Now the Democrats just oppose Trump.”

Other Republicans are taking a more procedural view. Sen. James Lankford of Oklahoma, the vice chair of the Senate Republican Conference, tells TIME that public hearings are “entirely reasonable,” but noted that the decision ultimately rests with committee leadership.

The result is a Congress that has yet to coalesce around a unified approach to overseeing the war. Lawmakers are raising concerns, asking questions and, in some cases, warning of political consequences, but those impulses have not translated into sustained institutional action.

In the meantime, negotiations between the U.S. and Iran appear at a standstill. On Tuesday, Trump announced an indefinite ceasefire with Iran while maintaining a blockade of Iranian ports. By Wednesday, Iran had seized two cargo ships attempting to navigate the Strait of Hormuz.

“As of today, it’s like—what next?” Kelly says. “They keep sending the wrong people to try to negotiate this.”